Method to recover non-recognized errors in aircraft weight determinations to increase weight and center of gravity limitations for regulated aircraft

ABSTRACT

A method of establishing a justification basis to Aircraft Regulatory Authorities, to allow a regulated aircraft to operate at increased maximum weight limitations, through the statistical identification of non-recognized weight errors being allowed in today&#39;s aircraft weight determination methods, with the recovery and utilization of the non-recognized weight errors to increase weight limitations through a Regulatory Authority finding of an Equivalent Level of Safety. A system for use in measuring aircraft weight and center of gravity, providing a method to reveal non-recognized weight errors. Sensors are attached to the landing gear struts, so to periodically and randomly measure and monitor aircraft weight and center of gravity.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

For safe operation of an aircraft, the weight of the aircraft must bedetermined prior to take-off. Airlines (also referred to as: FAA/Part121 “Air Carriers”) have strict departure schedules which are maintainedto maximize aircraft utilization each day. Today's airline operationstypically do not place fully loaded aircraft upon scales as a means tomeasure the aircraft weight, and the distribution of that weightcommonly referred to as the aircraft Center of Gravity (“CG”): prior toan aircraft's departure (“dispatch”) from an airport gate.

On any single day within the United States, airlines average 28,537departures; where each of these air carriers must determine the weightand CG for each aircraft prior to departure. United States populationhas progressively become heavier over the years; thereby the individualweight of each passenger on these aircraft has become heavier. Airlinesaround the world operate on a very strict time-schedules, where even ashort departure delay occurring early in the day can have a rippleeffect and create scheduling problems throughout the airline's remainingflight schedule. Aircraft load planning is a crucial part of keeping anairline operating on schedule. A scheduled aircraft departure willcommence its load planning process up to one year prior to the actualflight. Airlines do not offer ticket sales for a flight more than twelvemonths prior to the flight. As each ticket for a scheduled flight ispurchased, the average passenger and average checked bag weights areassigned into a computer program, continually updating throughout theyear the planned load for that flight. Aircraft have a Maximum Take-OffWeight “MTOW” limitation. Airline load planning procedures useassumptions as to the weight of passengers and baggage loaded onto theaircraft, to stay below the aircraft MTOW limitation.

In the United States of America, aircraft weights are limited by FederalAviation Administration “FAA” regulation. The FAA is the RegulatoryAuthority which regulates the design, development, manufacture,modification and operation of all aircraft operated within the UnitedStates, and will be referenced along with the term “RegulatoryAuthority” to indicate both the FAA and/or any governmental organization(or designated entity) charged with the responsibility for eitherinitial certification of aircraft or modifications to the certificationof aircraft. Examples of other Regulatory Authorities would include:European Aviation Safety Agency “EASA”, within most European countries;Transport Canada, Civil Aviation Directorate “TCCA”, in Canada; AgênciaNacional de Avição Civil “ANAC” in Brazil; or other such respectiveRegulatory Authority within other such respective countries.

FAA Regulations (provided in the Code of Federal Regulations) are thegovernmental regulations which detail the requirements necessary for anaircraft to receive certification by the Regulatory Authority within theUnited States. These would be equivalent to such regulations within theJoint Aviation Regulations “JARs” which are used in many Europeancountries.

Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25 refers toregulations which control the certification of Air Transport Categoryaircraft (“Part 25 aircraft”.) Part 25 aircraft include most of thecommercial passenger aircraft in use today. For example, Part 25aircraft includes Boeing model numbers 737, 747, 757, 767, 777; AirbusA300, A310, A320, A330, A340, etc. The methods described herein providethe justification basis needed for a Regulatory Authority to allowincreases to the aircraft weight limitations and expansion of theaircraft CG limitations, in particular for airlines which do not provideassigned seating for their passengers. The FAA regulations allow forcontrol mechanisms to assure Part 121 air carriers manage aircraftloading procedures to confirm at the completion of the loading processthat the aircraft load remains within the aircraft's certified forwardand aft CG limits.

In particular:

-   -   Title 14—Code of Federal Regulations:    -   Part 121-695, subparagraph (d)    -   § 121.695 Load Manifest: All Certificate Holders        -   The load manifest must contain the following information            concerning the loading of the airplane at takeoff time:        -   (a) The weight of the aircraft, fuel and oil, cargo and            baggage, passengers and crew members.        -   (b) The maximum allowable weight for that flight that must            not exceed the least of the following weights:            -   (1) Maximum allowable takeoff weight for the runway                intended to be used (including corrections for altitude                and gradient, and wind and temperature conditions                existing at the takeoff time).            -   (2) Maximum takeoff weight considering anticipated fuel                and oil consumption that allows compliance with                applicable en route performance limitations.            -   (3) Maximum takeoff weight considering anticipated fuel                and oil consumption that allows compliance with the                maximum authorized design landing weight limitations on                arrival at the destination airport.            -   (4) Maximum takeoff weight considering anticipated fuel                and oil consumption that allows compliance with landing                distance limitations on arrival at the destination and                alternate airports.        -   (c) The total weight computed under approved procedures,        -   (d) Evidence that the aircraft is loaded according to an            approved schedule that insures that the center of gravity is            within approved limits.        -   (e) Names of passengers, unless such information is            maintained by other means by the certificate holder.

If an airline is found to be operating a Regulated aircraft with weightsin excess of the aircraft's certified weight limitations, that airlineis subject to Federal penalties and fines. It is a violation of FederalLaw to knowingly operate an aircraft, when the aircraft weight hasexceeded any of the Original Equipment Manufacturer's (“OEM's”)certified weight limitations.

All air carriers must have FAA approved procedures in place (“anapproved schedule”), in which the air carrier will follow suchprocedures to insure each time an aircraft is loaded, the load will bedistributed in a manner that the aircraft CG will remain within theforward and aft CG limitations. The FAA and the specific air carrierdevelop these procedures, which are often referred to as “loading laws,”and when implemented define how the aircraft is loaded. An accuratedetermination of the total passenger weight portion of a flight couldmost readily be accomplished by having a scale located at the entranceto the aircraft door, by which all weight that enters the aircraft wouldbe measured. Though this solution sounds simple, having the measuredweight of the passengers and their carry-on items would causesubstantial disruption in an airline's daily flight schedule if theaircraft in which the planned load where to have all of the loadedweights measured; to only at moments before the aircraft is scheduled todepart finds the aircraft weight now exceeds the MTOW limitations. Anaircraft delay would result and many dissatisfied passengers would berequired to be removed from their planned flight.

The FAA has established guidelines through the issuance of an AdvisoryCircular AC No: 120-27E, dated Jun. 10, 2005, “Aircraft Weight AndBalance Control”; in which an airline is allowed to determine aircraftweight through the adoption of a “weight and balance control program”for aircraft operated under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations(14CFR) part 91, subparts 121, 125 and 135. Part 121 deals withscheduled air carrier operations, including airlines such as American,Delta, United and Southwest.

The aircraft operator will use approved loading schedules to documentcompliance with the certificated aircraft weight limitations containedin the aircraft manufacturer's Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM), for thecompiling and summing of the weights of various aircraft equipment, fueland payload weights, along with the AC120-27H weight designations forpassengers and baggage. These types of loading schedules are commonlyreferred to as the Load Build-Up Method (LBUM).

The aircraft LBUM weight determinations are “computed” with the use ofguidance from AC120-27E and considered by the FAA as being 100%accurate. The FAA accepts an aircraft weight which is established underan approved weight and balance control program, using the guidance fromAC120-27B as to having zero error in the total aircraft weight; not evenone pound of error.

AC120-27E defines approved methods to determine the aircraft weightusing “weight assumptions” which are independent of any requirement touse scales to measure of the aircraft total weight at dispatch. Thefully loaded weight of the aircraft is established through a process ofcompiling the weights of various payload items based upon FAA approved“designated” average weights, for the varying elements such aspassengers, carry-on baggage, checked baggage, crew weight, cargo weightand the weight of fuel loaded; onto a previously measured empty aircraftweight. AC120-27E designates for large aircraft (being aircraftcertified to carry more than 70 passengers) approved weightassumption/designation for passengers and baggage as:

passenger weight - May-October 190.0 lb. passenger weight -November-April 195.0 lb. checked bag weight 28.9 lb. checked as “heavy”bag weight 58.7 lb.

Historical weather patterns regarding wind velocity and direction,combined with anticipated storm events along scheduled airline routesare also considered when planning the amount of fuel to be consumedduring the flight. On the actual day of a flight, typically two hoursprior to the departure of that flight, the airline's automated loadplanning program will transfer this particular flight plan to thedesktop computer display of one of the airline's Flight Dispatchers. Itis the responsibility of the Flight Dispatcher to then monitor theplanned load of this flight as passengers check-in and board theaircraft. The number of passengers and checked bags are input to theload-planning program. Typically this process goes without interruptionand the aircraft will dispatch on schedule, as planned. As theaircraft's door closes and the load-plan is closed-out by the FlightDispatcher, the aircraft weight associated with the “planned load” willalways match the aircraft weight associated with the “departure load” assubmitted to the FAA; because both are based on the same collection ofweight assumptions used in determining the LBUM. Use of an alternatemeans to physically measure the total aircraft weight, just as theaircraft door closes, and the possibility of the measured aircraftweight not matching the calculated weight of the LBUM, would have theairline facing a potential departure delay, to resolve any difference inthe two separate but parallel aircraft weight determinations. Thispotential for delay in the flight departure on as many as 2,500 dailyflights for a single airline, results in the various airlines notwilling to take the risk of hundreds of flight delays each day. Many ifnot most airlines currently dispatch their aircraft under FAA approvedLBUM procedures; a method which helps to keep the airlines running onschedule. This also creates an incentive for airlines to continue to usethe FAA approved assumed weights, irregardless to whether the assumedaircraft weight determinations are accurate.

Some airlines offer “assigned seating” within the cabin compartment fortheir passengers. This process not only allows the passenger theassurance that they will have the seat of their choosing, but alsoallows the airline load planners the knowledge of the exact locationwithin the cabin as to where the weight associated with that passengerand their carry-on items is located. Airlines which do not offer theoption of pre-assigned seating must entrust their load planningdepartments to determine aircraft CG, lacking the knowledge of where thepassenger weights will be located within the aircraft cabin. If anaircraft operated with an open-seating policy has in excess of 80% ofthe seats filled with passengers, the weight distribution shall beassumed equally distributed throughout the cabin. If the same aircraftdeparts with only 30% of the seats occupied, the airline has noassurance as to where the weight is located throughout the cabin.

Herein are two examples to better illustrate § 121.695 subparagraph (d)mentioned above. The Boeing 737-800 aircraft has a seating configurationfor 174 passengers, in which only 52 passengers (30%) were boarded ontothe flight, and will be used in the following examples:

-   -   Example #1—an air carrier which operates with an “assigned        seating” policy can position the 52 passengers (being just 30%        of total) and their associate weight, distributed evenly        throughout the aircraft cabin; thus assuring the cabin load        remains within the forward and aft CG limits. With each        passengers assigned a specific seat located within a specific        row number, the airline can plan the aircraft load with        confidence that the aircraft will be loaded within the aircraft        CG limitations.    -   Example #2—an airline which has an “open seating” policy, there        is a possibility that the 52 passengers may all select a seat        within the forward section of the aircraft, in order to be        seated forward of the aircraft wing and the engine noise        associated with those seats located aft of the wing; and to        further be able to quickly exit the aircraft upon arrival at        their destination. In this scenario where all 52 passengers are        seated within the forward ⅓ section of the aircraft, the        aircraft CG has the potential of being positioned beyond the        certified forward CG limit of the aircraft.        To insure the aircraft CG, as loaded in Example #2, remains        within the CG limitations, the FAA will place additional        operational restrictions, often called “curtailments” to the        extreme forward and extreme aft sections of the manufacture's        defined CG envelope. The airline which operates with these        curtailments must take actions to insure the aircraft remains        within these Regulatory Authority imposed “operationally        curtailed” CG limitations through methods such as blocking-off        the some of the forward and aft rows of the aircraft seating, or        to possibly add temporary “ballast” (heavy bags filled with lead        pellets) into the forward or aft cargo compartments of the        aircraft, to assure these partially loaded flights will remain        within the “operationally curtailed” CG limitations. A full        description of these curtailments along with the new methods of        this invention for relief of these curtailments will be        explained later.

The positioning of passenger weight is important to the aircraft flightplanning process. The Boeing 737-800 aircraft has an overall length of129 feet 6 inches, from nose to tail. Considering an airline operationwhich has the full use of the CG limitations with no curtailments, atthe reduced take-off weight of 150,820 lbs., the airline's load plannerhas but only 42 inches (see FIG. 1) to position the cabin and cargocompartment loading, from the originally aircraft's certified CGlimitations. If the load planner fails to stay within the forward end ofthis 42-inch window, the CG 27 will be too far forward, where theaircraft may fail to properly rotate for take-off and a subsequentrejected take-off could over-run the length of the airport runway. Ifthe load planner fails to stay within the aft end of the 42-inch window;the CG will be too far aft, where the aircraft may over-rotate attake-off resulting in a tail-strike, or transition into a stall wherethe aircraft could possibly crash.

Accurate determination of aircraft take-off weight is an important partof load planning in that it not only adds to the safety of each flightit also is an important consideration regarding the overall lifelimitation of the aircraft. The aircraft weight can be incorrect by asmuch as 2,000+ pounds and a “properly balanced” aircraft will stilltake-off, using and extra 100 feet of the available 10,000 feet ofrunway. The additional weight could come from a variety of possiblemis-calculations, but typically will not affect the aircraft take-off.

An aircraft is typically supported by plural and in most cases threepressurized landing gear struts. The three landing gears are comprisedof two identical main landing gear struts, which absorb landing loads,and a single nose landing gear strut used to balance and steer theaircraft as the aircraft taxis on the ground. Designs of landing gearincorporate moving components which absorb the impact force of landing.Moving components of an aircraft landing gear shock absorber arecommonly vertical telescopic elements. The telescopic shock absorber oflanding gear comprise internal fluids, both hydraulic fluid andcompressed nitrogen gas, and function to absorb the vertical descentforces generated when the aircraft lands. While the aircraft is restingon the ground, the aircraft is “balanced” upon three pockets oncompressed gas within the landing gear struts.

Monitoring the distribution and subsequent re-distribution of aircraftloads can be identified by measuring changes in the three landing gearstrut internal pressures, which will in turn identify the aircraft CG.The implementation of changes to aircraft loading procedures for boththe assumptions as to the weight of items loaded onto the aircraft, aswell as the location within the aircraft the weights are placed, furthercombined with strict auditing procedures to identify non-recognizedweight errors associated with the weight assumptions, create thejustification basis to allow aircraft weight and CG limitations to bemodified.

In spite of numerous variations in prior art for aircraft on-boardweight and balance systems (“OBWBS”), no U.S. airlines currently useOBWBS in their daily operations, but instead all major airlinestypically use the LBUM to determine aircraft weight.

This invention offers new methods with apparatus to “periodically”measure aircraft weight, in support of re-defined load planningprocedures and records-keeping, to create the justification basis forincreases in the aircraft weight limitations and an easing ofoperational CG curtailments for Regulated aircraft.

Additionally, the creation of the justification basis for an increase toweight limitations for Regulated aircraft, to a higher weight limitationequivalent to the amount of the currently allowed statistical error inweight assumptions of the LBUM shall be fully described in the newmethods of this invention for relief to weight limitations and CGcurtailments and will be explained fully throughout the Figures andDescriptions herein.

It should be noted that the Regulatory Authorities have variouspractices to provide relief or modification to the regulatoryrequirements, such as:

-   -   Equivalent Level of Safety    -   Special Condition    -   Exemption        This relief is normally granted by the Regulatory Authority,        after demonstration and/or analysis of an alternate means of        compliance, which verifies compliance with the intent of the        regulation, without showing literal compliance to the        regulation.

Another aspect of this invention are methods by which Part 121 aircarrier operations utilizing “random/open seating” polices are justifiedin receiving relief from operational CG curtailments caused by aircraftloading assumptions, to an equivalent of the broader CG curtailments ofair carrier operations using “assigned seating” policies, whereby theoperational CG limitations of a Part 25 aircraft may be increased andacknowledged by aviation Regulatory Authorities. One of the methods ofthis invention involves analysis of periodically obtained weight and/orCG data from daily airline operations, combined with development andimplementation of set of new daily operational requirements for the Part25 aircraft; thus providing by either: a demonstration and/or analysisto substantiate, a finding of an “Equivalent Level of Safety” and/or“Special Condition”.

-   -   The FAA defines an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) as follows:        “Equivalent level of safety findings are made when literal        compliance with a certification regulation cannot be shown and        compensating factors exist which can be shown to provide an        equivalent level of safety.”        -   {http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgELOS.nsf/}

The FAA issues a finding of ELOS during the process of certification,whether that be the initial certification of an aircraft, certificationsof derivative aircraft the manufacturer may develop or when issuing aSupplemental Type Certificate for modifications to an aircraft type,developed by entities other than the manufacturer.

In the case of existing air carrier operations the “literal compliance”with an accurate determination of aircraft weight and CG, which cannotbe shown, however the “compensating factors” which exist in this newinvention to substantiate the ELOS finding include:

-   -   The incorporation of apparatus and methods to measure,        periodically record and display (or generate alerts) when        defined weight and/or CG thresholds are exceeded and, one or        more of the following additional elements:        -   The Approved Flight Manual for the aircraft contains            specific operationally imposed weight and CG limits with            which the aircraft must apply and provides for compliance            with the traditional LBUM in determining aircraft total            weight, if the ability of the system's periodic sampling of            weight and CG becomes inoperative;        -   Apparatus and methods for periodically recording aircraft            weight and/or CG for a specific sample size of aircraft            dispatches in support of a trend monitoring system to            monitor the “experienced” aircraft loading; as compared to            both the specific load manifest of the periodically weighed            aircraft and that of the loading pattern trends of the            airline's full fleet of aircraft;        -   Alerting to the flight deck crew if the real-time sampled            weight and/or CG has exceeded one or more pre-defined            thresholds.

The FAA defines Special Condition as follows:

-   -   “A Special Condition is a rulemaking action that is specific to        an aircraft type and often concerns the use of new technology        that the Code of Federal Regulations does not yet address.        Special Conditions are an integral part of the Certification        Basis and give the manufacturer permission to build the        aircraft, engine or propeller with additional capabilities not        referred to in the regulations.”        -   {http://rglfaa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/}

A requirement for periodic sampling of physically measured aircraftdispatch weight and CG is not referred to in the regulations; thereforea pathway for Special Condition is created.

A Regulatory Authority may wish to approve such installation, use andregulatory relief from such a System, by the issuance of a SpecialCondition as an alternative to the granting approval established by anELOS, based upon no regulatory requirement or definition of a Systemwhich measures aircraft take-off weight and CG. Regardless of theregulatory approval path used, the System attributes would be the same.

One of the methods of this invention comprises analysis of“statistically generated” random passenger weights with application ofpotential non-recognized errors in both the average passenger andaverage baggage weight data, to be further compared to the distinct 190lb. weight designation to an additionally assumed 50% male/50% femalepassenger profile boarding onto the aircraft; further combined withdevelopment and implementation of set of new daily operationalrequirements for the Part 25 aircraft; thus providing by either: ademonstration and/or analysis to substantiate, a finding of an“Equivalent Level of Safety” and/or “Special Condition”.

Though the FAA may continue to assume aircraft weight determinations, ascomputed within the guidance of AC120-27E, to have zero errors in theaircraft weight determination; a statistical evaluation and review ofthe FAA approved methods finds significant errors in the LBUM weightswhich remain un-recognized by the FAA. It will be the identification andquantification of these un-recognized weight errors and the ability toabsorb these errors into and with the physical measurement of theaircraft weight, that will create a satisfactory justification basis forRegulatory Authorities to allow regulated aircraft to operate at anincreased aircraft MTOW limitation; which increased weight limit isequivalent to the difference between the statistical errors of LBUMcomputed weight to that of the actual measured aircraft weight.

A common finding when physically re-weighing an aircraft to determinethe Operating Empty Weight (“OEW”) is that the weight of the emptyaircraft never gets lighter, but tends to get heavier over the life ofthe aircraft. As aircraft age, the insulation within the cabin willretain higher amounts of moisture. Dirt will accumulate on lubricatedsurfaces; dirt will become embedded within the carpets and seat fabrics.Structural repairs, which consist of doubling-plates, riveted overdiscovered fuselage cracks, add weight to the aircraft. These weightincreases will remain unrecognized for up to the 36 months intervalbetween the aircraft 3-year re-weighing cycles. Some airlines utilize apractice of “fleet average” weighing, where a minimum of 6 aircraft plusan additional 10% of the operating fleet; i.e.: 56 of a 500 aircraftfleet will be physically re-weighed, where the remaining 444 aircraftwill be assumed to have an identical averaged fleet-weight.

The scales used to determine the aircraft OEW are not required tomaintain any FAA stipulated accuracy tolerance, other than an FAArequirement that the airline should calibrate the scale according to ascale calibration procedure approved by the scale manufacturer. Errorscan often be as high as 0.5%.

To this point, the focus of this new invention has examined the aircraftMTOW limitation. MTOW is one of four aircraft weight limitations thatare established in the flight's load planning process for a particularaircraft dispatch, as part of determining a specific aircraft weightlimitation using the LBUM process of determining aircraft weight.

The methods described herein are applicable as procedures and practicesused to obtain Regulatory Authority approval to amend existing aircraftweight calculation practices for determining other aircraft operatingweights including: MRampW, MLW and MZFW. In today's airline operations,other aircraft weight determinations such as: MRampW, MLW and MZFW areall determined using the same foundations of the MTOW, as determined byLBUM computations.

The Maximum Ramp Weight (“MRampW”) is the MTOW plus the weight of thefuel needed to operate the engines while the aircraft taxi along theairport's service ramps, prior to take-off.

The Maximum Landing Weight (“MLW”) is maximum allowable weight at whichthe aircraft can “plan” to land. The MLW is the MTOW less the amount ofweight associated the “planned” fuel consumption for the flight.

The Maximum Zero Fuel Weight (“MZFW”) is the maximum amount of weightless any onboard fuel. The MZFW is used to determine limits as topassengers and payload, which are loaded onto an aircraft. MZFW is theMTOW less the amount of fuel within the aircraft's fuel tanks asmeasured by the aircraft cockpit fuel indicators.

The Boeing 737-800 is one of the most common commercial aircraft flownworldwide by today's airlines and shall be used as the example aircraftthroughout the examples and illustrations in this invention.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A method obtains a change in certification weight limits of an aircraftmodel from a Regulatory Authority. The aircraft model comprises pluralaircraft, each aircraft of the aircraft model capable of carrying apayload, the aircraft model having a first maximum weight limit. Themethod comprises, for an aircraft of the aircraft model near the firstmaximum weight limit, obtaining statistical data on the weight of thepayload carried by the aircraft. The step of obtaining statistical dataon the weight of the payload carried by the aircraft is repeated for anumber of flights of aircraft of the aircraft model. For the samerespective flights, computed data on the weight of the payload isobtained. For each flight, comparing the statistical data on payloadweight to the computed data on payload weight and determining a weighterror. Using the statistical weight data, the computed weight data andthe weight error, obtaining certification from the Regulatory Authorityfor the aircraft model to operate within the amount of the weight errorand above the first maximum weight limit.

In one aspect, the step of obtaining statistical data on the weight ofthe payload carried by the aircraft further comprises the step of usinga random number generator to provide the payload weights, the randomnumber generator using a predetermined mean and a predetermined standarddeviation.

In another aspect, the step of obtaining statistical data on the weightof the payload carried by the aircraft further comprises the step ofmeasuring the actual weights of the payloads.

In still another aspect, the step of obtaining computed data on theweight of the payload further comprises the step of using RegulatoryAuthority prescribed weights in a load build up method.

In still another aspect, the first maximum weight limit comprises afirst maximum takeoff weight limit.

In still another aspect, the first maximum weight limit comprises afirst maximum landing weight limit.

In still another aspect, the first maximum weight limit comprises afirst maximum zero-fuel weight limit.

In still another aspect, the first maximum weight limit comprises afirst maximum ramp weight limit.

In still another aspect, the method further comprising the step ofdetermining when an aircraft of the aircraft model is near the firstmaximum weight limit by obtaining computed weight data for aircraft ofthe aircraft model.

A method plans for operations of an aircraft model so that individualaircraft of the aircraft model operate within acceptable maximum weightlimitations. Aircraft of the aircraft model are operated and obtainingand using computed weights of the aircraft to operate the aircraft andensure the aircraft is within the maximum weight limitations, thecomputed weights of the aircraft comprising assumptions of payloadweights. Sampling the operations of the aircraft of the aircraft modelby measuring the weight of at least some of the aircraft of the aircraftmodel. For the sampled operations, comparing the measured weights to thecomputed weights and determining a weight error. Using the weight errorto modify the assumptions of payload weights and using the modifiedweight assumptions to determine improved computed weights of theaircraft in subsequent aircraft operations.

In one aspect, the assumptions of payload weights comprises passengerweights.

In another aspect, the assumptions of payload weights comprises baggageweights.

In still another aspect, the step of measuring the weight of at leastsome of the aircraft of the aircraft model further comprises the step ofmeasuring the weight supported by landing gear of the aircraft.

A method operates an aircraft, the aircraft having a first maximumtake-off weight limitation based upon Regulatory Authority certificationlimits. Before dispatching the aircraft for flight operations,determining a computed weight of the aircraft, the computed weightcomprising assumptions as to weights of a payload on the aircraft.Identifying weight error in computed payload weights of the aircraft,the computed payload weights using assumed weights for payload.Determining that the computed weight of the aircraft is within the firstmaximum take-off limitation plus the weight error. Dispatching theaircraft if the computed weight of the aircraft is below the sum of thefirst maximum take-off limitation and the weight error, periodicallyobtaining the measured aircraft take-off weight through a weightverification reliability program database. Comparing the computedaircraft take-off weight to the measured aircraft take-off weight storedwithin the weight verification reliability program. Identifying from themeasured aircraft weight, the non-recognized weight errors allowed bythe computed aircraft take-off weight. Identifying the statistical errorfound in the compiled payload weight assumptions. Based upon use ofmeasured aircraft take-off weight, operating the aircraft at a higher,second maximum take-off weight equivalent to some portion of thestatistical error in the assumptions of the non-recognized weight.

In one aspect, the aircraft belongs to an aircraft model which aircraftmodel comprises substantially similar aircraft. The operations of theaircraft of the aircraft model are sampled by measuring the weight of atleast some of the aircraft of the aircraft model. For the sampledoperations, comparing the measured weights to the computed weights andverifying that the aircraft take-off weight is below the sum of thefirst maximum take-off limitation and the weight error.

In another aspect, further comprising the step of using the weight errorto increase corresponding aircraft center-of-gravity limitations.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Although the features of this invention, which are considered to benovel, am expressed in the appended claims, further details as topreferred practices and as to the further objects and features thereofmay be most readily comprehended through reference to the followingdescription when taken in connection with the accompanying drawings,wherein:

FIG. 1 is a side view of a typical Boeing 737-800 transport categoryaircraft, with various components of the invention including anon-aircraft computer and an off-aircraft computer residing in a separatebuilding, along with nose and main landing gear of the aircraft deployedand resting on weight measuring ground scales.

FIG. 2 is a side view of a typical aircraft landing gear strut, withvarious elements of the invention attached to the landing gear strut.

FIG. 3 is a front view of a typical aircraft landing gear strut withadditional elements of the invention attached to the landing gear strut.

FIG. 4 is a chart illustrating a typical Load Build-Up Method “LBUM”used by airlines to determine total aircraft weight.

FIGS. 5a and 5b illustrate non-recognized weight errors through acomparison of a fully loaded Boeing 737-800 aircraft, with all 174passengers assigned the Regulatory Authorities' designated weight of 190pounds per person; to that of 174 statistically generated randompassenger weights applied to all 174 seats within the aircraft.

FIG. 6 illustrates the non-recognized weight error of FIGS. 5a and 5b ,with the addition of the Regulatory Authorities designated 5 pound perperson in additional weight assumption, added to each passenger'sweight, for assumed extra winter clothing; and adjusting the Male % toFemale % distribution assumptions.

FIG. 7 illustrates a comparison of Regulatory Authorities' designatedweights for personal items and carry-on baggage, with the FAA identified16 lb. applied to each of the carry-on items. Further illustrating a 20%change in assumed allocation applied and assumed 15% error in itemweight.

FIG. 8 illustrates an analysis of the Regulatory Authorities' designatedchecked baggage weight designations, distributed as the RegulatoryAuthorities' assumed: 33%—zero, 33%—one checked bag, and 33%—one checkedbag and one heavy checked bag per passenger baggage allocation; with anassumed 20% error of 4.3 pound per checked bag and 8.8 pound per heavychecked bag error applied, and 20% error is assumed allocation applied.

FIG. 9 illustrates a calculation of the potential of a 2% error in thedetermination of the weight of the fuel onboard the aircraft, in thattypical aircraft fuel weight indicators are allowed and error toleranceof 2%.

FIG. 10 illustrates a calculation of the potential of a 0.5% error inthe determination of the empty aircraft weight, in that typical aircraftweighing scales allowed an error up to 0.5% of the measured aircraftweight.

FIG. 11 is an apparatus block diagram illustrating both on-aircraftcomputer with inputs from strut pressure/temperature and axle deflectionsensors, and off-aircraft computer with various software programs formeasuring aircraft weight; in accordance with a preferred embodiment ofthe present invention.

FIG. 12 illustrates the methodology for obtaining Regulatory AuthorityApproval for the allowance to periodically measure aircraft weight inorder to increase a Regulated aircraft's MTOW limitations.

FIG. 13 illustrates the methodology for Regulatory AuthorityImplementation for the allowance to periodically measure aircraft weightin order to increase a Regulated aircraft's MTOW limitations.

FIG. 14 illustrates the methodology for Regulated Air Carrier Operationsto periodically measure aircraft weight in order to increase a Regulatedaircraft's MTOW limitations.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

The present invention provides methods to identify and quantify errorsin aircraft weight determinations. Information regarding the errors isused in future aircraft operations to determine the aircraft weight withhigher accuracy. Information regarding the errors is also used in futureaircraft operations to allow an increase in maximum weight limitations.Such an increase in maximum weight limitations allows an aircraft tocarry more payload and generate more revenue. In addition, increases inmaximum weight limitations allow an aircraft to carry more fuel.

The present invention identifies errors in aircraft weightdeterminations by obtaining statistical data on the payloads of aircraftthat are near a maximum weight limit. The statistical data is obtainedfrom a number of actual aircraft operations that have already occurred.Examples of maximum weight limitations include maximum take-off weightand maximum landing weight.

The actual aircraft operations involve actual flights of aircraft. Suchoperations include dispatching the aircraft from a gate after passengersand cargo have been loaded, pushing the aircraft back from the gate,taxiing the aircraft, taking off, flying the aircraft to the nextdestination, landing the aircraft at the destination, taxiing theaircraft to the gate and discharging the passengers and cargo. Inplanning for an upcoming flight of an aircraft, an airline usesassumptions of weight of the passengers, baggage, fuel, etc. Theseweight assumptions are added to the weight of the empty aircraft andother items, such as food, beverage carts, etc. From this, the airlineis able to determine a computed weight of the aircraft for the upcomingoperation and flight. The aircraft is dispatched using the computedweight.

The present invention compares the computed weight of the actualaircraft operations to the statistical data on weight and determines thestatistical error as well as the measured physical error in the weight.This weight error is then presented to the Regulatory Authority toobtain an increase in the certified maximum weight limitation. Thisweight error is also used by an airline to increase the accuracy of itscomputed weights, which computed weights are based on assumptions.

The present invention thus works within the current regulatoryenvironment and enhances the operations of aircraft. Airlines cancontinue to use computed weights, based on weight assumptions, to planfuture aircraft operations. Those same computed weights are used todispatch the aircraft for operations. Airlines need not be concernedwith delaying flight operations, such as gate departures, due tomismatches in weights.

Preferably, the comparison between statistical weights and computedweights occurs for aircraft that are full or near full, which is whenthe aircraft are at or near a maximum weight limitation. As thecomparisons are performed after the flights or operations have occurred,a determination can be made that a particular aircraft operationutilizes a full or near full aircraft based upon computed weights.

The determinations are made by aircraft model because a RegulatoryAuthority certifies weight limitations a particular aircraft model foroperation. A particular aircraft that is within that certified aircraftmodel is also certified. In other words, regarding weight limitations, aRegulatory Authority certifies not individual aircraft, but the aircraftwithin a particular aircraft model and sub-model. For example, a Boeing737-800 is a particular 737 aircraft model with the −800 being asub-model. Boeing has made and will make a number of aircraft that arewithin this aircraft model.

Payload includes passengers and baggage, whether the baggage is carriedon by the passengers or checked and stowed in the cargo compartments ofthe aircraft. Payload also includes cargo, such as packages, mail, etc.

In the description herein, the disclosures and all other information ofmy earlier U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,214,586; 5,548,517; 6,128,951; 6,237,406 and6,237,407 are incorporated by reference.

The present invention utilizes prior art methods to physically measurethe weight of an aircraft as it rest on the ground. Parallelmeasurements of aircraft weight by independent weight sensing featuresallow for an increase in confidence of the physical weight measurementsand further offer cross-verification for physical weight measurementsystem accuracy.

The present invention utilizes prior art methods to physically measurethe Center of Gravity “CG” of an aircraft as it rest on the ground.

In today's airline operations, aircraft MTOW determinations are computedby a Load Build-Up Method, which processes and procedures have remainedrelatively un-changed for the past 50 years. The FAA has publishedAdvisory Circular AC120-27E offering guidance for an approved method todetermine the aircraft weight by “computations” which are independent ofany requirement to measure of the weight of an aircraft fully loadedwith passengers and/or cargo. The fully loaded weight of the aircraft iscomputed by a process of compiling the weights of various payload itemsbased upon FAA “designated” average weights, for the varying elementssuch as passengers, carry-on baggage, checked baggage, crew weight;along with cargo weight and the weight of fuel loaded; onto a previouslymeasured empty aircraft weight. This method of computing the aircraftweight based on the summing of the various weight elements loaded on toa pre-measured empty aircraft weight is often mentioned as the LoadBuild-Up Method and in this description shall continue to be referred toas the “LBUM”.

The FAA's AC 120-27E designated weight assumptions/allocations forairline passengers and baggage are:

Average passenger weight - summer 190.0 lb. Average passenger weight -winter 195.0 lb. Average bag weight 28.9 lb. Average heavy bag weight58.7 lb.

On the actual day of a flight, typically two hours prior to thedeparture of that flight, the flight's automated load planning programwill be transferred to the desktop computer display of one of theairline's Flight Dispatchers. It is the responsibility of the FlightDispatcher to then monitor the planned load of that flight as passengerscheck-in at the gate. The number of passengers and allocations forchecked bags are input to the load-planning program. Typically thisprocess goes without interruption and the aircraft will dispatch onschedule, as planned. As the door of the aircraft is closed and theload-plan is closed-out by the Flight Dispatcher, the “planned load”will always match the “departure load” as submitted to the FAA; becauseboth are based on the same compilation of weight assumptions used indetermining the LBUM. Many if not most airlines currently dispatch theiraircraft under FAA approved LBUM procedures; a method which helps tokeep the airlines on schedule.

Throughout the description herein, examples will be shown forcalculations to determine aircraft take-off weight, being a weight thatmust never exceed the aircraft's certified Maximum Take-Off Weight(“MTOW”) limitations. Other aircraft weight limitations including MLWand MZFW are computed using a derivative the LBUM. Calculation of the“planned landing weight” is determined by subtracting the weight of thefuel, which is planned to be consumed during the flight from thedetermined aircraft take-off weight. Calculation of the zero-fuel weightis determined by subtracting the weight of the fuel within all fueltanks, as indicated by the aircraft's fuel indicators, from thedetermined aircraft take-off weight.

Systems and/or components used and installed on Regulated aircraft areconformed and certified by the FAA and other Regulatory Authorities andtypically have “design standards” which are stringent up to a factor of10⁻⁹ and used in qualification. Ten to the minus 9^(th) (“10⁻⁹”) is theterm typically used and has the equivalent of the odds for a failure ofno more than one in one billion (1 in 1,000,000,000). When consideringthe chances or odds of an airline having non-recognized errors in theirmethods and procedures for determining aircraft take-off weight fallwell below the 10⁻⁹ standards.

With many daily departures and the associated chances for some type offailure within the airline's LBUM system for determining aircraftweight, the illustration utilized (shown in FIG. 5b ) simulates a randomgeneration of 174 simulated passenger weights from a pool of 256,000randomly generated passenger weights. The random passenger weights werecreated by the “Random Number Generation Tool” within the Analysis ToolPack of the Microsoft Office Excel program; where 190 pounds wasselected as the “Mean” (representing average weight), and 47(representing pounds) was selected as the “Standard Deviation” where265,000 random numbers (the maximum number allowed in the Excel program)are requested. The 265,000 randomly generated passenger weights willfill 174 seats within a total of only 1,471 flights. On any single daythere is an average of 28,537 airline departures within the UnitedStates,

-   -   http://www.ratca.org/mediacenter/bythenumbers.msp#1        thus the example (shown in FIG. 5b ) is a random loading of only        1 in 1,471 flights; as opposed to 1 in 28,537 per day of airline        flights; or even 1 in 1,000,000,000 being the 10⁻⁹ standard; is        a conservative illustration of the potential for error.

The examples shown (in FIGS. 5a and 5b ) illustrate and compare thestatistical errors associated with the LBUM, without any considerationof the potential for human errors in mis-loading weight values into theLBUM algorithms, which would compound against the statistical errors, toincrease the overall weight errors.

Use of a random number generation tool is one way to obtain statisticalweight data. Other methods of obtaining statistical data can be used.For example, taking actual measurements of a sample population ofairline passengers could be used. Still another way to obtainstatistical data, as discussed below, is to obtain actual weightmeasurements from a sample of loaded aircraft.

An aircraft is typically supported by plural landing gear struts. Inmany if not most cases, aircraft are supported by three landing gearstruts. Each landing gear strut is designed much like, and incorporatesmany of the features of a typical telescopic shock absorber. The shockabsorber of the landing gear strut comprises internal fluids, of bothhydraulic oil and compressed gas. More simply said . . . “the weight ofan aircraft rests on three pockets of compressed gas.”

As a point of clarification, throughout this description the use of theword “weight” can often be substituted with the use of the word “load”in that some airline operations will seek to avoid any possibility toallow the LBUM determined “take-off weight” of their aircraft bemeasured; thus referring to loads being applied onto the landing gearstruts are often preferred.

The invention herein described will have some portion of all aircrafttake-off weights measured as part of the defined processes andprocedures to allow for an increase in the MTOW, MLW and MZFWlimitations; while those airlines not wanting weight determination butinstead desire only relief of CG curtailments will use the determinationof “load distribution” features of this invention, without the continuedcalculations to determine the amount of measured aircraft weightsupported.

The average population weight has been documented as becoming heavieryear-after-year. For this reason, filled aircraft will (if measured)have a heavier measured weight than the weight computed by populationweight data determined in the current FAA/AC120-27E, issued Jun. 10,2005; which is in use today. Airlines throughout the United States areusing this stale weight data in the current 28,537 aircraft dispatchesper day.

By measurement of just the loads applied to each landing gear strut andthus transferred as pressure within each landing gear strut, with thefurther comparison of the load distribution between the combined mainlanding gear to that of the nose landing gear, the aircraft CG isestablished, without measuring the weight of the aircraft.

The weight of the aircraft supported by the above mentioned pockets ofcompressed gas is transferred down the landing gear strut to the landinggear axles, which bear the load and are supported by the landing geartires. As weight is added to the aircraft, the axles will bend anddeflect with the addition of more load. As an alternate means ofdetermining aircraft weight, the bending/deflection of the aircraftlanding gear axles can be monitored and measured with such axledeflection being directly proportional to the additional amount ofweight added. The deflection of the landing gear axles represent thesame load as supported by the pockets on compressed gas, thus bothprovide methods of determining aircraft weight, which may run parallel.

This invention provides methods of identifying, defining andillustrating a means of justification, for aviation RegulatoryAuthorities to allow for increases to the weight limitations forRegulated aircraft. The methods described herein develop variousstrategies including the building of a “justification basis” forincreases to MRampW, MTOW, MLW and MZFW limitations; to higher weightlimitations, which approved increased weight amounts are less than theamount of non-recognized weight errors in existing operations using theFAA approved guidance of AC120-27E.

Use of prior art aircraft weighing systems are implemented into aRegulatory Authority approved schedule to periodically make aircrafttake-off weight measurements, along with unique methods and proceduresfor the review, analysis and documentation of non-recognizes weighterrors, currently allowed in LBUM procedures; which will provide thenecessary evidence for Regulatory Authorities' granting weight increasesin amounts not exceeding the non-recognized weight errors being allowedtoday, through a Regulatory Authority's finding of an Equivalent LevelOf Safety.

The methods of this new invention further develop strategies for newrequirements, for implementation of operational procedures to assureRegulatory Authorities; that allowing the increase in MRampW, MTOW, MLW,and MZFW limitations for Regulated aircraft, will offer an EquivalentLevel Of Safety, as an alternative means of Regulatory Compliance.

Regulatory Authorities do not require airlines to weigh aircraft todetermine aircraft take-off weight, as a means to confirm aircraftweight limitations have not been exceeded. The procedures implemented inthis invention for a defined schedule of pre-take-off aircraftweighings, facilitate the development of a new category of “reliabilityprogram” implemented to assure Regulatory Authorities that any increasein aircraft weight limitations shall not be abused nor exceed thenon-recognized weight errors currently being allowed. Such periodicfully loaded aircraft take-off weighings will create a Superior Level ofSafety, to that of aircraft currently operating with un-measuredweights, which un-measured weights allow even further exceedance, beyondof certified weight limitations.

The present invention offers apparatus and methods utilizing a varietyof sensors for collecting landing gear load data to continually update avariety of interrelated computer software programs, creating a moreadvanced aircraft weight measuring system.

To summarize this system, apparatus and methods used for continuousmonitoring and measuring by various sensors include:

-   -   Strut pressure/temperature sensor    -   Landing gear strut axle deflection sensor    -   Aircraft inclinometer    -   On-aircraft computer to collect aircraft and landing gear data    -   Off-aircraft computer to process collected landing gear data,        with software functionality to determine aircraft weight and CG    -   Wireless communication capabilities between on-aircraft computer        and off-aircraft computer

It is important for any aircraft weighing system to have the ability toaccurately determine the aircraft weight before the departure from thegate.

This invention provides methods of identifying, defining andillustrating various means of justification for aviation RegulatoryAuthorities to allow for increases to the certified aircraft weight andoperational CG limitations for Regulated aircraft. The methods describedherein develop various strategies in the identification ofnon-recognized weight errors for a justification basis built upon thestatistical demonstration of the long history of these non-recognizedweight errors having created no un-safe aircraft operations for fullyloaded/weighted aircraft, and to further construct an acceptablereliability program of safe aircraft operations with weight increases inRegulated aircraft weight limitations, equivalent to the non-recognizedweight errors currently allowed today.

Airlines welcome any opportunity to increase the payload capabilities oftheir aircraft, considering the opportunity to increase the MTOW andassociated MLW and MZFW limitation by up to 5,960 pounds and 3.4% of theMTOW (shown in FIG. 10); through the use the today's aircraft weightmeasuring systems, to more accurately determine the total aircraftweight.

In the preferred embodiment, the method for obtaining a RegulatoryAuthorities' approval for an increase in the aircraft MTOW andassociated MRampW, MLW and MZFW limitations includes the followingsteps;

-   -   1. Record daily determinations of the total “computed” weight of        the aircraft using existing weight determination procedures        provided in the LBUM process (for example, shown in FIG. 4);    -   2. Periodically determine the total “measured” weight of the        aircraft using an OBWBS (for example, refer to U.S. Pat. No.        5,214,586—Aircraft Weight and Center of Gravity Indicator; or        U.S. Pat. No. 5,548,517—Aircraft Weight and Center of Gravity        Indicator); or other suitable means to measure aircraft weight        and CG;    -   3. Develop an aircraft “Weight and CG Reliability Program”        utilizing the following steps:        -   a. Measure the aircraft take-off weight and CG with a            periodic weighing frequency acceptable to Regulatory            Authorities,        -   b. Compare the periodically measured aircraft take-off            weight and CG to corresponding LBUM take-off weight and CG            computations,        -   c. Develop a data-base of identified trends in the            differences in weight amounts and differences in CG            locations,        -   d. Utilize the measured weight and CG data, compared to the            LBUM weight and CG data, to establish the amounts for weight            adjustments to be incorporated into the airline's LBUM            passenger and bag weight assumptions,            -   i. The FAA, through AC120-27E guidance, allows for                airlines to adjust the weight allocations for passenger                and bags; with evidence the revised weights are more                accurate.        -   e. Over a defined period of time, being acceptable to            Regulatory Authorities (i.e.: days, weeks or months), apply            the adjustments to passenger and baggage weight assumptions,            to improve the LBUM weight and CG determinations, and using            the new assumed weight assumptions align the computed            aircraft weight with the measured aircraft weight.            -   i. Comparison of measured aircraft CG to that of LBUM                determined aircraft CG will aid in determining the                amount of change designated for the bag weight                assumptions, in that individual “assumed bag weights”                are tracked in the positioning of those bags within the                forward and aft baggage compartments, and non-recognized                errors in bag weight will become recognized through                monitoring of the aircraft CG.        -   f. Upon analysis of measured weight and CG data compared to            LBUM weight and CG data, and gaining assurances that the            LBUM weight and CG assumptions have been sufficiently            modified to reflect what would be an equivalent measured            weight and CG; increase the aircraft MTOW, MLW and MZFW            limitations in an amount no greater than the total of the            illustrated non-recognized weight errors, less an amount            equivalent to the accuracy tolerance for the OBWBS used to            measure aircraft weight and CC, or other means used to            measured aircraft weight.    -   4. Create a look-up table within the OBWBS computer to compile a        data-base of any future amounts of non-recognized weight        transported, by continual comparison of measured aircraft weight        to LBUM determined weight, to promote assurances that the        Regulated aircraft have safely flown and continue to safely fly        at weights which have been increased to a higher certified MTOW        limitation.

A question still remains; “Why not just use measured aircraft weight andCG for every dispatch?”

As previously mentioned; “As good as an OBWBS might be for measuring theaircraft weight, such a system cannot plan the aircraft load.” Airlinesattempt to avoid any situation where a discovered discrepancy in theaircraft weight or CG, identified by use of a measured aircraft weight,might result in a schedule delay. Thus the development of a “Weight andCG Reliability Program” to allow Regulatory Authority's the assurancethat the aircraft is being operated as safe as the aircraft hashistorically been operated while transporting the non-recognized weighterrors; and with increase MTOW equivalent to the non-recognized errorshistorically allowed, will allow for the airline to proportionallyincrease the weight transportation capabilities of their aircraft.

Regulatory Authorities may choose to limit the amount of MTOW increase,to allow only some smaller percentage of the non-recognized weighterrors, when airlines are using the “Weight and CG Reliability Program.”Airlines may consider the additional benefits of having the fullpercentage of non-recognized weight errors added to the MTOW if theyimmediately begin using measured weights and CG to dispatch theiraircraft, and deal with any potential schedule disruptions if themeasured aircraft weight is found greater than the increased MTOWlimitation.

Though any of the methods herein described may be used, with potentialvariations in overall accuracy of the weight determination; thepreferred method is to use OBWBS to determine weight supported at eachlanding gear strut.

The methods described herein are applicable as procedures and practicesused to obtain Regulatory Authority approval to amend existing aircraftweight calculation practices tor determining varieties of aircraftweights including: MRampW, MTOW, MLW and MZFW. Referring now to thedrawings, wherein like reference numerals designate corresponding partsthroughout the several views and more particularly to FIG. 1 there isshown a side view of a typical Boeing 737-800 transport category “Part25” aircraft 1, supported by tricycle landing gear configurationconsisting of a nose landing gear 3, and two identical main landinggears, including a left main landing gear 5 and a right main landinggear 7 (both main landing gear positioned at the same locationlongitudinally along the aircraft, but shown in perspective view forthis illustration).

Landing gears 3, 5 and 7 distribute the weight of aircraft through tires9, which in this illustration rest atop of platform weighing scales 13,with platform weighing scales 13 resting on the ground 11. Each ofscales 13 measure a portion of aircraft 1 weight, supported at eachrespective landing gear, and with the three scale 13 weight measurementsadded together, they identify the total weight of aircraft 1, which inthis example is 176,100 lbs., being 1,900 lbs. (or 1.09% of MTOW) inexcess of the certified MTOW of 174,200 lbs. for this Boeing 737-800aircraft. Aircraft 1 has a forward baggage compartment 15 and an aftbaggage compartment 17.

Electronic elements which are used in this invention, and are attachedto aircraft 1, are an on-aircraft data acquisition computer 19, aircraftinclinometer 21 to correct measured aircraft angle of inclination tothat being level with the horizon, cockpit display/keypad 23 allowingpilots a means to read on-aircraft computer 19 information and allowpilots to input data into on-aircraft computer 19, landing gear strutpressure sensors 51 and landing gear axle deflection strain gaugesensors 53 (shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 3). On-aircraft computer 19contains various internal circuit boards for the collection of strutpressure/temperature data and axle deflection data from respectivelanding gears 3, 5 and 7.

On-aircraft computer 19 is capable of wireless communication with acorresponding off-aircraft computer 39 which is located within abuilding 41. Off-aircraft computer 39 has no aircraft or landing gearsensor inputs. Off-aircraft computer 39 receives sensor input datarecorded by on-aircraft computer 19 via wireless communications.Regulatory Authority's certification of software is required within anycomputer permanently attached to the aircraft 1. Use of on-aircraftcomputer 19 to only measure and record sensor data, and make nosophisticated calculations or computations; to then subsequently andwirelessly transmit only the recorded and date/stamped sensor data tooff-aircraft computer 39 which does not reside on aircraft 1, can allowfor a significant reduction in the system's software certification costsassociated with providing airlines with this information. As an example:aircraft On-Board Weight and Balance Systems (“OBWBS”) requireRegulatory Authority certification for any internal software. Groundbased computers that determine the same aircraft weight and balanceinformation require far less stringent levels of software certification.

100% of the weight of the aircraft rests upon the combined left andright main landing gears 5, 7 and nose landing gear 3. The aircraftCenter of Gravity (“CG”) 27 can be determined by the comparing themeasured weight (or if weight measurements are to be avoided, measuredload as identified by strut pressure or axle deflection) supported bythe combined main landing gears 5, 7 to that of the measured weightsupported by the nose landing gear 3. As the percentage of the weightsupported by nose landing gear 3 changes in relation to the weightsupported by the combined main landing gears 5, 7 so does the locationof the aircraft CG 27. (in FIG. 1, the CG is shown above the aircraftfor illustrative purposes.)

Vertical dotted line 29 illustrates the forward end of aircraft 1.Horizontal line 31 illustrates the length on aircraft 1 being 1,554inches long.

Downward pointing vertical arrow 35 illustrates the location for weightof aircraft 1, supported by the nose landing gear 3. Downward pointingvertical arrow 37 illustrates the location for weight of aircraft 1,supported by the combined left main 5 and right main 7 landing gears.

The accurate determination of aircraft 1 CG 27 is a critical process inthe load planning for aircraft 1. Though aircraft 1 is 1,554 inches inlength as shown by horizontal line 31, the forward and aft limits of theoperational center-of-gravity envelope are only 42 inches apart, asillustrated by horizontal line 33. With just 42-inches of allowablecertified center-of-gravity envelope, airline dispatchers must takegreat care in determining the amount and specific location of weightloaded onto aircraft 1.

Typical LBUM loading computations assume all of the bags are loaded andevenly distributed throughout baggage compartment as shown in forwardbaggage compartment 15. The assumed even distribution of the bagsresults in the total assumed weight of bags located at the geographiccenter of forward baggage compartment 15, shown as vertical line 16. TheBoeing 737-800 aircraft forward baggage compartment 15 is twenty-fivefeet in total length, with the forward compartment door 18 located atthe center of the compartment 15. The aft baggage compartment 17 isthirty-six feet in length, with the geographic center of aft compartment17, shown as vertical line 20. Aft baggage compartment door 22 islocated near the rear of the aft compartment 17. In this illustrationforward baggage compartment 15 has an even distribution of bags, wherethe assumed weight is assigned to the location at the center of thecompartment, as illustrated by vertical line 16. Aft baggage compartment17 has the concentration of checked bags located in the aft portion ofbaggage compartment 17, shown by vertical line 24. The LBUM loadingcomputation will not recognize this difference in the location of weightassociated with the aft positioned bags in compartment 17, and itsnon-recognized shift in aircraft CG 27 further aft, as shown by“aft-shift arrow 26”. Both forward and aft baggage compartment areequipped with restraining nets that hold the bags in place, to avoid thebags sliding as the aircraft 1 takes-off. This non-recognized aftloading of the bags could have the aircraft CG 27 located beyond the aftcenter-of-gravity limit, creating a scenario where the aircraft is tootail heavy in which the aircraft could over-rotate at take-off, thenstall and possibly crash. Measured aircraft CG 27 allows for a SuperiorLevel of Safety, in comparison to the approved methods for determiningCC 27 today.

Although the weight of aircraft 1 is shown measured on platform weighingscales 13, the weight of the aircraft can be measured by a variety ofOBWBSs (as shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 3).

Referring now to FIG. 2 which illustrates apparatus for an OBWBS used asa method to measure aircraft 1 weight, where there is shown a side viewof a typical aircraft telescopic right main landing gear strut 7,comprising the landing gear strut cylinder 45, in which strut piston 47moves telescopically within strut cylinder 45. Pressure within landinggear 7 is monitored by a pressure sensor 51. All weight supported bytire 9 is transferred through axle 49, to piston 47; resulting invariations to landing gear strut 7 internal pressure, as recorded bypressure sensor 51. As weight is applied to landing gear strut 7,telescopic piston 47 will recede into strut cylinder 45, reducing theinterior volume within landing gear strut 7 and increasing internalpressure in proportion to the amount of additional weight applied.Pressure sensor 51 will measure changes of strut pressure. Withcorrections made for pressure errors caused by landing gear strut sealfriction, landing gear strut 7 functions as an equivalent to aircraftweighing scale 13 (shown in FIG. 1), but; with the capability of foldingup and moving with the aircraft 1. As weight is added to landing gearstrut 7 axle 49 will deflect in direct proportion to the amount of addedweight. Deflection of axle 49 (shown in FIG. 3) is measured by straingauge sensor 53.

Referring now to FIG. 3 which illustrates an alternate view of theapparatus for an OBWBS used as a method to measure aircraft 1 weight,where there is shown a front view of a typical aircraft telescopic mainlanding gear strut 7 comprising landing gear strut cylinder 45, in whichstrut piston 47 moves telescopically within strut cylinder 45. Landinggear strut piston 47 attached to an axle 49 which uses a wheel and tire9 to transfer aircraft weight to the ground 11. Pressure within landinggear 7 is monitored by a pressure sensor 51. Pressure measured bypressure sensor 51 is proportional to the amount of applied weight ontolanding gear 7. The applied weight to landing gear 7 is also measured byaxle deflection sensor 53, which is bonded to axle 49. Axle deflectionsensor 53 can be of the strain gauge variety, which measures thevertical deflection of axle 49. A bold solid line 55 is shown runninghorizontal across the center-line of landing gear axle 49 and representsan un-deflected stance of the landing gear axle 49. As additional weightis applied the landing gear strut 7, axle 49 will deflect. A bolddashed-line 57 illustrates a very slight curve; representing verticaldeflection from solid line 55 of axle 49 and is shown running adjacentto the un-deflected bold solid line 55. The amount of deflection oflanding gear axle 49 is directly proportional to the amount of weightapplied. As weight is applied to landing gear strut 7, the increase inweight will be Immediately sensed by the additional deflection of axle49 and measured by strain gauge sensor 53. In this illustration, scale13 is placed between tires 9 and ground 14. The associated weight ofaircraft 1 supported by landing gear strut 7 is measured by scale 13.The weight measurement of scale 13 corresponds directly with themeasured deflection of axle 49 by axle deflection sensor 53.

Axle deflection sensor 53 will transmit a signal representing the weightapplied to the landing gear strut 7, to the system on-aircraft computer19 (shown in FIG. 1). As weight is added to landing gear strut 7 axle 49will deflect in direct proportion to the amount of added weight.

Referring now to FIG. 4 there is shown a chart listing various weightcategories for which airlines typically use to determine the totalweight of an aircraft before flight. This practice is commonly calledthe Load Build-Up Method “LBUM”. The aircraft selected for the exampleis the Boeing 737-800. The example chart in this FIG. 4 is divided intoeight columns with each column number 1-8 shown at the top of eachcolumn.

-   -   Column 1 represents the Operating Empty Weight “QEW” of the        aircraft. The OEW is the weight of the empty aircraft. One        method to measure the empty weight of the aircraft is to roll        the aircraft onto three platform-weighing scales 13, with one        landing gear resting on each of the scales. Each scale measures        the weight supported by each respective landing gear and the        weights are added together to measure the aircraft total weight        (shown in FIG. 1). An alternate method to measure the empty        weight of an aircraft is to place it onto tripod floor-jacks,        then lift the entire aircraft up and off of the hanger floor. A        load-cell is located at the top of each floor-jack; so that once        the aircraft is suspended above the floor, the weight of the        aircraft rests on the three load-cells (this method is not        shown). The OEW is then measured and the aircraft CG is further        determined from the measured aircraft weights. Though the term        OEW identifies the aircraft as empty, the aircraft is empty of        fuel, payload and crew. Other items such as engine and systems        hydraulic fluid, in-flight magazines, galley items such as        coffee-makers and other lavatory items are considered part of,        and are included in the OEW. In this example, the OEW of the        Boeing 737-800 aircraft is 91,108 lbs. Aircraft are reweighed on        a periodic basis to account for changes in OEW.    -   Column 2 represents the weight of the fuel which is carried        within the aircraft fuel tanks. In the determination of aircraft        weight, the fuel weight is determined by recording aircraft fuel        indicator readings. Fuel is pumped onto the aircraft through        flow-meters which measure the volume of fuel flow in gallons,        and the aircraft fuel tank system has an indicator which        converts the volume of fuel contained within each tank into a        quantity indicated as pounds. The typical conversion rate is 6.8        pounds per gallon of fuel. In this example 6,000 gallons of fuel        are contained within the fuel tanks, totaling 40,800 lbs.    -   Column 3 represents the weight associated with the food,        beverages and other catering items planned for consumption        during the flight. Airlines typically use catering carts which        are pre-loaded with food, beverages and ice, prior to being        loaded onto the aircraft. There are several types of catering        carts; either a lighter cart filled with trays of food, or a        heavier cart filled with canned soda beverages and ice. Each        respective cart has a standard weight assigned to it based on        the size and capacity of the cart. In this example, three of the        heavier 128 lb. beverage carts are loaded onto the aircraft,        totaling 384 lbs.    -   Column 4 represents the weight of the flight crew. The airline        flight crew weights are divided into two categories: pilot-crew        and cabin-crew. FAA regulations regarding        assumed/assigned/designated weight values used in the LBUM are        contained within FAA Advisory Circular—AC120-27E. AC120-20E        designates a weight for each pilot at 240 lbs. The pilot is        assumed to be carrying personal baggage and additional flight        charts and aircraft manuals onto the aircraft. FAA regulations        require 2 pilots (including a co-pilot) for this FAA Part 25        category of aircraft. FAA Regulations require one flight        attendant for each block of 50 passengers, for which the        aircraft is certified to carry. AC120-27E designates a weight        for each cabin attendants at 210 lb., which includes personal        baggage. The Boeing 737-800 aircraft is certified to carry a        maximum of 174 passengers, thus the weight of 4 cabin attendants        for this size of aircraft is applied. Combined pilot and cabin        attendant weights total 1,320 lbs.    -   Column 5 represents the “measured weight” of the cargo loaded.        Each of the 6 respective cargo items for this example flight is        pre-weighed on scales prior to being loaded onto the aircraft.        The cargo weight for this example flight totals 750 lbs.    -   Column 6 represents the weight of the checked bags (those bags        which are loaded into the baggage compartments located below the        aircraft cabin floor). AC120-27E designates weight values for        two types of checked bags, depending on the assumed size of each        bag. Smaller bag weights are assigned at 28.9 lbs. each. Larger        bag weights are assigned at 58.7 lbs. each. For this flight        there are 116 small bags totaling 3,352 lbs., plus an additional        58 large bags totaling 3,405 lbs., for a combined checked bag        weight total of 6,757 lbs.    -   Colum 7 represents the weight of 174 passengers for this flight.        AC120-27E designates weight values for average passenger weights        at 190 lb. for summer weights and 195 lbs. for winter weights.        It is assumed that during colder months, passengers will include        more clothing as they board the aircraft. The summer average        passenger weight of 190 lbs. is used between May 1^(st)-October        31^(st) and winter weight of 195 lbs. is used between: November        1^(st)-April 30^(th). With this example, the lower 190 lbs.        summer weight assumption is being used. The passenger weight        includes carry-on items. Such carry-on items include bags,        purses, small luggage, backpacks, etc. With all tickets        passenger boarding the aircraft, the weight of 174 passengers        total 33,060 lbs. (shown in box 59).    -   Column 8 represents the computed total weight of the aircraft.        Summing the totals along the bottom of columns 1-7 equals a        174,179 lbs. determination for the aircraft total weight (shown        in box 61). Typical airline operations round-up the weight        determination to the nearest 100 lbs. increment. The 174,179        lbs. accumulation is increased to 174,200 lbs. of aircraft total        weight as determined by the LBUM; which also happens to be the        MTOW limit for this Boeing 737-800 aircraft.

In the United States of America, the FAA is the Regulatory Authoritythat approves the designated weights. In other countries or regions,other Regulatory Authorities may have jurisdiction.

Referring now to FIG. 5a , there is shown an illustration of a passengerweight build-up chart illustrating the passenger weight distribution fora fully loaded Boeing 737-800 aircraft. The Boeing 737-800 aircraft is atypical narrow-body aircraft. The aircraft cabin is configured to carrya maximum of 174 passengers within a single economy class cabin having6-across seating shown as seats in columns A, B, C, D, E and F. Thereare 29 equally spaced rows; shown vertically on the left side of thechart identified as Aircraft Row #1-29.

Regulatory Authority guidance found in AC120-27E shows the averagepassenger weight has been established from the National Health andNutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted by the Centers forDisease Control (CDC) in 1999. The NHANES data conducted actual scaleweighings of approximately 9,000 subjects. The standard deviation forNHANES survey was 47 lbs. (this value will be used again to generatethousands of randomly selected passenger weights). The NHANES surveydata concluded the population with a “mean” average weight for males as184 lbs. plus 16 lbs. of additional weight was added for carry-on itemstotaling 200 lbs. The average weight for females was determined at 163lbs. plus 16 lbs. of additional weight was added for carry-on items.

In this example illustrates a full flight, where all available seatshave been allocated to passengers with an AC120-27E designated averagepassenger weight of 190 pounds per person, including carry-on baggage.The 190 lbs. passenger weight assumes 50% of the passengers are male and50% of the passengers are female. The computation for the totalpassenger weight is the simple equation of 190 lbs.×174=33,060.00 lbs.(shown in box 59).

Referring now to FIG. 5b , there is shown an alternate illustration ofthe passenger weight build-up chart of FIG. 5a ; but instead of 190 lbs.being assigned to each seat; randomly generated passenger weights areassigned to each of the 174 seats. The random generation of 174simulated passenger weights can been established from a pool of 256,000randomly generated passenger weights through the “Random NumberGeneration Tool” within the Analysis Tool Pack of the Microsoft OfficeExcel program; where 190 pounds was chosen as the “Mean” (representingaverage weight), and 47 (representing pounds) was designated as the“Standard Deviation” and 265,000 random numbers (the maximum numberallowed in the Excel program) are requested. From the 265,000 randomlygenerated numbers, the initial block of numbers containing the first 174values was selected and assigned to the 174 seats of the Boeing 737-800used in the chart model for this example. The total passenger weightvalue from the random passenger weight totaled 34,081.93 (shown in box65). Analysis of the 174 random passenger weights found in this initialblock of random weights, the average weight was 195.87 lbs. (shown inbox 63). Multiplying the additional 5.87 lbs. weight error tines the 174filled seats, finds a total non-recognized weight error of 1,021.93 lbs.(shown in box 67).

Referring now to FIG. 6 there is again shown the non-recognized weighterror of 1,021.93 lbs. associated with random passenger weights, (shownin box 67). An additional non-recognized error of 870.00 lbs. (shown inbox 69) takes into account an additional 5 lbs. of winter clothingweight for the passengers on an October 15^(th), 6:00 am departure froman airport in Chicago, Ill.; with a morning temperature of 36° whereAC120-27E assumes since the November 1^(st) calendar date has yet toarrive all of the 174 passengers are still wearing summer clothing. TheRegulatory Authorities will assign the additional 5 lbs. per person forwinter clothing weight, but only 2 weeks later than this flightdeparted, with the substantial weight error.

Regulatory Authorities make another assumption that within each of the28,537 daily departures, the passenger distribution between male/femalewill always be 50% male and 50% female. If the distribution varieswhereby 73% of the passengers are male and an additional 40 malepassengers are 21 lbs. heavier along with the corresponding reduction of40 female passengers which are 21 lbs. lighter; the non-recognizedweight error will increase by an additional 1,680 lbs. (shown in box71).

Beginning with this FIG. 6 and continuing through FIG. 10 there will beshown a variation of “box 73 a through 73 e” illustrating the cumulativeeffects of the non-recognized errors applied as the weight of theaircraft increases.

Box 73 a illustrates the cumulative non-recognized weight error totaling3,571.93 lbs.

Referring now to FIG. 7, where in 1999 the NHANES conducted weightsurveys, supporting AC120-27E being the Regulatory guidance forpassenger and baggage weight allocations in loading aircraft. Since 1999there have been significant advancement in designs for roll-aboardhand-luggage which are now specifically designed to fit snuggly insidethe over-head storage compartments within the passenger cabin, and arecommonly used as carry-on items and not recognized as luggage. Theseroll-aboard bags, which are simply a slightly smaller version of typicalchecked baggage, allow many passengers the convenience of not having towait for off-loaded checked-bags at the baggage claim departments. Theserecent trends are allowing more non-recognized weight to be transportedwithin the passenger cabin of the aircraft. Recent airline practices ofcharging for checked bags have shifted more weight into the “free ofcharge” carry-on bags, which passengers will pack heavier and carry intothe passenger compartment. New designs for the roll-aboard luggage havetypical internal dimensions of 22″×15″×9″ allowing 1.72 cubic feet ofvolume within each bag. An independent test was performed employing tenseparate attempts to pack assorted clothing items into the 1.72 cubicfeet of the roll-aboard bag, to find variations in the measured bagweights which ranged from a low of 15.6 lbs to a high of 24.7 lbs. Thehigh weight error found in the tests deviated 54.38% above the meancarry-on bag weight of 16 lbs.

This FIG. 7 illustrates the Regulatory Authorities' prescribed weight of16 lbs. for personal items and carry-on baggage, applied with AC120-27Eassumptions of: ⅓, ½, ⅓ split for passengers carrying 0, 1, or 2 items.The determined weight for carry-on items totals 2,783.7 lbs. (shown inbox 75).

A further comparison was made to today's more typical aircraft boardingswith only 20% of the passengers boarding the aircraft with their handsempty, and 40% boarding while carrying only one item, plus an assumed15% deviation applied to the FAA identified 16 lbs. weight allocationfor the carry-on items. The conclusions found in this illustration apotential carry-on weight up to 3,841.7 lbs. (shown in box 77). Acomparison of the carry-on bag weight assumption in box 75 to thepotential carry-on weight value in box 77 illustrates an additional1,058.0 lbs. for non-recognized weight error (shown in box 79).

Box 73 b illustrates the cumulative non-recognized weight errorincreasing to 4,629.8 lbs.

Referring now to FIG. 8 there is shown a comparison of the of theRegulatory Authorities' checked baggage weight designations for bothstandard bag weight and heavy bag weight for the fully loaded, 174passenger Boeing 737-800 flight. Checked baggage distribution is appliedaccording to the guidance of Regulatory Authorities' AC120-27E andapplied with the following per passenger assumptions: 33%—zero bags,33%—one checked bag, and 33% one checked bag and one heavy checked bagtotaling 6,756.3 lbs. (shown in box 81) compared to the same perpassenger bag allocation. Data obtained from a large domestic airlineoperating a fleet of Boeing 737 aircraft finds passengers checking 1.2bags per person, compared to the FAA assumed 174 bags for 174passengers. With this applied 20% increase in number of checked bags,the application of the 20% bag weight error increased the checkedbaggage total weight by 1,351.3 lbs. (shown in box 85) to a totalchecked baggage weight of 8,107.6 lbs. (shown in box 83).

Box 73 c illustrates the cumulative non-recognized weight errorincreasing to 5,981.0 lbs.

Referring now to FIG. 9 there is shown a calculation for the weight ofthe fuel required for the planned flight. The Boeing 737-800 used in theexample has fuel capacity of 6,875 gallons. Typical aircraft fuelindicators measure the volume of fuel pumped into the fuel tanks withflow-meters, then use 6.8 lbs. per gallon as the conversion rate for thefinal weight determination. A measure volume within a gallon of jet-fuelwill change with changes in temperature. On a warm day, a gallon of fuelwill expand thus the gallon will weigh less than a gallon of fuel whichhas contracted on a cold day. Typical aircraft fuel indicators have anaccuracy tolerance of ±2.0%. Though the fuel indicators are not requiredto have zero error, the Regulatory Authorities allow the fuel indicatorweight determinations to be used without any requirement for theconsideration of possible errors in the fuel weight. For this example6,000 pounds of fuel was required for the planned flight. The conversionto pounds determined 40,800 lbs. of fuel. Applying the potential of a2.0% fuel indicator error, the non-recognized weight error for the fuelis as high as 816.0 lbs. (shown in box 87).

Box 73 d illustrates the cumulative non-recognized weight errorincreasing to 6,797.0 lbs.

Referring now to FIG. 10 there is shown a chart-illustrating thenon-recognized weight error associated with the weighing of the emptyaircraft. AC120-27E provides the Regulatory Authority guidance for useof scales when weighing the empty aircraft, but makes no specificrequirements for scales accuracy.

-   -   b. An operator should establish and follow instructions for        weighing the aircraft that are consistent with the        recommendations of the aircraft manufacturer and scale        manufacturer. The operator should insure that all scales are        certified by the manufacturer or a certified laboratory, such as        a civil department of weights and measures, of the operator may        calibrate the scale under an approved calibration program.        -   Page 4 Par 104b-AC120-27E:6/10/05

Scale accuracy typically range with a 0.25% error in the amount of thefull weight capability of the scale. Typical platform weighing scaleshave a maximum weight limitation of 60,000 lbs., thus a 0.25% errorwould tolerate up to 150 lbs. of error for each scale. While weighing anaircraft, the aircraft must be supported by at least three points.Multiplying by three the 150 lbs. scale tolerances illustrates the 450lbs. error (shown in box 89).

Regulatory Authorities allow airlines with large fleets of commonaircraft types to avoid having to weigh every aircraft in their fleet onthe required 3-year intervals. A large domestic air carrier operates asingle fleet type of totaling 450 of the Boeing 737-700 aircraft.AC102-27E prescribes the minimum number of aircraft whose weight shallbe measured in determining the “average aircraft fleet weight” isdefined as a minimum of 6 aircraft, plus 10% of the remaining fleet. Theequation for this numbers is: 6+[(450−6)×10%]=50.4 which is rounded upto 51 aircraft. A rotation of 51 separate aircraft, within the commonfleet type, must be re-weighed within 3-year intervals. AC120-27E alsorequires that no aircraft within the fleet shall be allowed to operatewith an OEW which is heavier than 0.5% of the fleet average weight.AC120-27E allocated no weight error in OEW for aircraft contained withinan average fleet weighing program. The additional non-recognized 0.5%weight error applied to the Boeing 737-800 OEW of 91,108 lbs. is 455.5lbs. (shown in box 91).

Box 73 e illustrates the cumulative non-recognized weight errorincreasing to 7,364.9 lbs.

In creating a justification basis for Regulatory Authority allowance forthe non-recognized weight errors to be allowed as additional weight tothe MRampW, MTOW, MLW and MZFW; the Regulatory Authorities must beassured that no other weight errors be allowed in the process fordetermining aircraft weight. Use of an aircraft weight measuring devise,whether it be ground scales with a typical error of 0.25% or a systempermanently attached to the aircraft with typical errors no more than1.0%, can assure Regulatory Authorities that the non-recognized weighterrors can be reduced to errors no larger than those errors in thedevices which physically measure the fully loaded aircraft total weight.

The subtraction of the 1,742.0 lbs. (shown in box 93) being the 1.0%error associated with the aircraft weighing device, measuring up to the174,200 lbs. MTOW limitation of the Boeing 737-800 aircraft, from thetotal non-recognized weight errors of 7,364.9 lbs. (shown in box 73 e)equates to a potential weight increase of 5,622.9 lbs. (shown in box 95)to the MTOW. 5,622.9 lbs. divided as a percentage of the 174,200 lbs.total aircraft weight equates into a 3.4% increase in the MTOW for theBoeing 737-800. The use of an aircraft weight measuring device toeliminate any non-recognized weight errors in excess of weight errorassociated with the aircraft weight measuring device creates ajustification basis for an Equivalent Level of Safety for a RegulatoryAuthority to allow a MTOW increased weight equivalent to the netdifference between the non-recognized weight errors, and the aircraftweight measuring devices error tolerances.

Referring now to FIG. 11 there is shown a block diagram illustratingboth the on-aircraft computer 19, with various sensor inputs and theoff-aircraft computer 39 with various Software Programs; being part ofthe apparatus of the invention. Sensor inputs to on-aircraft computer 19include multiple inputs from (respective nose 3, left-main 5 andright-main 7 landing gear) strut pressure sensors. Strut pressure sensor51 incorporates a temperature sensor for monitoring internal temperaturewithin the landing gear strut. Sensor inputs to on-aircraft computer 19also include multiple inputs from (respective nose 3, left-main 5 andright-main 7 landing gear) landing gear axle deflection measuringsensors 53. Aircraft hull inclinometer 21, is located on any horizontalportion of the aircraft 1, and also has an input to on-aircraft computer19. On-aircraft computer 19 has a cockpit display and keypad 23, whichallows pilots to discern information from and input data to on-aircraftcomputer 19. The on-aircraft computer 19 outputs of data and informationare transmitted via a wireless transmitter/receiver 25, to a wirelesstransmitter/receiver 43 attached to off-aircraft computer 39. Variouschanges of aircraft hull angle, measured by inclinometer 21 are inputsto on-aircraft computer 19.

Both on-aircraft computer 19 and off-aircraft computer 39 are equippedwith internal synchronized clocks and calendars, to document the timeand date of recorded and received sensor data.

On-aircraft computer 19 has multiple data acquisition/transmissionfunctions which include:

-   -   Data Acquisition function “Alpha” which monitors nose and main        landing gear internal strut pressure and temperature; and stores        the recorded with time and date references to respective strut        pressure and temperature measurements to such time as the data        is transmitted to off-aircraft computer 39.    -   Data Acquisition function “Beta” which monitors nose and main        landing gear axle deflections; and stores the recorded data with        time and date references to respective axle deflection        measurements to such time as the data is transmitted to        off-aircraft computer 39.    -   Data Acquisition function “Gamma” which monitors changes the        angle of aircraft hull in relation to the level and horizontal        ground; and stores the recorded data with time and date        references to hull angle change measurements to such time as the        data is transmitted to off-aircraft computer 39.    -   Data Transmission function “Delta” which wirelessly transmits        the time and date referenced landing gear sensor data and        aircraft hull angle data to off-aircraft computer 39.

On-aircraft computer 19 is limited to landing gear sensor dataacquisitions functions and the transmission of that landing gear loaddata to off-aircraft computer 39. On-aircraft computer 19 is restrictedhaving operating software which calculates the aircraft weight and CG.Having the sophisticated software to make the calculations for “flightcritical information” such as aircraft Weight and CG; operating solelywithin off-aircraft computer 39, substantially reduces the costs forcertifying any subordinate software used in the acquisition of landinggear sensor data, residing within on-aircraft computer 19.

Off-aircraft computer 39 has capabilities for wireless reception andtransmission of multiple landing gear and aircraft hull angle sensordata records and Software packages and data acquisition/transmissionfunctions which include:

-   -   Software Program “Zeta” which processes recorded pressure and        temperature sensor data from the respective nose and main        landing gear to resolve into values equivalent to the weight        supported at each respective landing gear,    -   Software Program “Eta” which processes recorded axle deflection        sensor data from the respective nose and main landing gear to        resolve into values equivalent to the weight supported at each        respective landing gear,    -   Software Program “Theta” which processes recorded aircraft hull        inclination sensor data from the on-aircraft inclinometer to        resolve into a value of off-set equivalent to the aircraft being        horizontal,    -   Software Program “Kappa” which re-processes respective landing        gear weight values to determine the total aircraft weight and        the aircraft CG as compared to weight and CG limitation        thresholds. If a weight and or CG threshold is exceeded,        notification of such exceedance will be given.    -   Software Program “Lambda” which receives manual inputs regarding        respective LBUM weight and CG determinations to be compared to        as Software program “Kappa” weight and CG determinations to        develop a data-base to compute the amounts of non-recognized        weight errors historically allowed to be transported on the        aircraft,    -   Data Transmission function “Sigma” which wirelessly transmits        back to on-aircraft computer 19 the time and date referenced        aircraft weight and CG determinations corresponding to the        landing gear sensor data processed.

Referring now to FIG. 12 there is shown a first illustration in anextended process design, configured within this first flow-chart for themethodology for obtaining Regulatory Authority Approval for theallowance to periodically measure aircraft weight in order to increaseRegulated aircraft weight limitations. This FIG. 12 is followed by FIG.13 and FIG. 14 which together encapsulate the justification basis,implementation of system hardware, continued airworthiness and safetyprocedures with protocols required for aircraft historically usingassumed weight values in the determination of aircraft take-off weights,to be allowed to take-off at weights higher than currently certifiedMTOW limitations, when using a system to measure aircraft weight; wheresuch higher MTOW limitations are no greater than the statistical errorscompounded through the use of a variety of un-measured and assumedweights.

The methods on this invention can be extrapolated across the variousaircraft weight limitations (MRampW, MTOW, MLW, MZFW) as set byRegulatory Authorities, all of which are determined in some part by thevarious weight assumptions assigned to male passengers, femalepassengers, average baggage, heavy baggage and fuel loaded onto theaircraft in various ranges of temperature;

In this FIG. 12, there is shown a view of a process design flow chartfor a “Method of Obtaining Relief from Regulated Aircraft MTOWLimitations”. Relief to increase MTOW limitations, from the RegulatoryAuthorities is required for the subsequent operation of the aircraft ata second higher MTOW limitation. In this example: an on-board weighingsystem being installed onto the aircraft is used for initial computationfor the “new” aircraft MTOW limitation, where measured aircraft weightsare recorded and compared to respective computed aircraft weights asdetermined by the LBUM. This process is developed for a particularaircraft type and model, such as with this example, the Boeing 737-800.Once the determination of the amount of increase for the “new” MTOW ismade, the allowable weight increase shall be applied to all aircraft ofthat type and model which utilize an adequate aircraft weight measuringsystem in conjunction with the prescribed periodic aircraft weighings asstipulated by the Aircraft Weight Reliability Program. For example, theamount of weight increased allowed for the Boeing 737-800 will not bethe sane amount of allowable weight increase for the Boeing 737-700aircraft. Though both aircraft are of the same 737 type, they each havedifferent weight limitations.

With the Aircraft Weight Measuring “System” being used to physicallymeasure the aircraft weight, pilots are assured that a gross weighterror will not go un-noticed that might create a safety hazard for aparticular flight.

Upon the computation of a new increased Max Take-Off Weight limitation,predicated on a recognition of the non-recognized weight errors andsubsequently measured aircraft take-off weights, and the apparatus tomeasure and verify take-off weights on all subsequent take-off events, asystem support mechanism is created to document the processes,procedures and limitations for the use of the apparatus and methods ofthis invention, that Regulatory Authorities are assured an EquivalentLevel of Safety is maintained. These include, but are not limited tocreating and maintaining Instructions for Continued Airworthiness,addition of an Approved Flight Manual Supplement covering this newaircraft weight measuring system operation, limitations and procedures,as well as operational adjustments in the event the aircraft weightmeasurement system is inoperable.

Also required is a complete “Documentation of the Justification Basis”for the issuance of an Equivalent Level of Safety, Special Condition,Exemption, or other alternate means of regulatory compliance. Thesefactors include a review of the historical basis of regulatoryrequirement, along with advancement in technology and operatingprocedures. Some of these advancements include the development of newsystems and procedures that aid pilots in identifying proper aircraftstabilizer and trim settings with systems.

Continued safe operation of the aircraft will be maintained by thesubsequently implemented practice of measured aircraft weightdeterminations being made from measured landing gear load sensor data,rather than weight assumptions made in AC120-27E. Continued safeoperation of the aircraft will be maintained by subsequent monitoring ofaircraft operational landing loads, at each respective landing gear.

These supporting materials, data and procedures are submitted to theRegulatory Authority as justification for the Regulatory Authority'sacknowledgement and approval to allow an increase in MTOW, MRampW, MLWand MZFW limitations equivalent to the amount of non-recognized weighterrors allowed by AC120-27E assumptions of a variety of weight elements;to increase the aircraft MTOW, MRampW, MLW and MZFW limitations, withthis demonstration of an Equivalent Level of Safety, or other qualifyingdocument. An illustration of the extended process design, configuredwithin this initial flow-chart of the methodology for obtainingRegulatory Authority Approval for the allowance to periodically measureaircraft weight, compared to computed weight, to reveal and document thenon-recognized weight errors, as the justification basis to increaseRegulated aircraft weight limitations herein is shown within FIG. 12.

Referring now to FIG. 13 there is shown a view of a second processdesign flow chart for a “Method of Obtaining and Implementing MTOWlimitations for aircraft. This additional system support mechanism iscreated to document the processes, procedures and limitations for theuse of the apparatus and methods of this invention, that RegulatoryAuthorities are assured an Equivalent Level of Safety is maintained.Request is made of the Regulatory Authority to approve modifications tothe aircraft's Approved Flight Manual Limitations section regarding theincrease in aircraft MTOW limitations. Upon such Flight Manualmodification approval, the completion of the installation of theaircraft weight measuring system onto the aircraft, in accordance withrespective Supplemental Type Certificate installation requirements; thedesign of newly modified flight training programs for flight crew andimplement such training programs for the use and understanding of thenew aircraft weight system are completed. The airline which operates theaircraft with the increased MTOW limitations will modify itsdocumentation for each respective aircraft equipped with the aircraftweight measuring system. The airline operating aircraft with theincreased MTOW will amend their “fuel planning programs” for increasedopportunities to tanker/ferry more economical fuel; and amend their“load planning programs” in accordance with the prescribed weightincreases. When these programs and processes are complete, notificationcan be made to flight crews and the airline's Operational ControlCenter, as Maintenance Control activates the aircraft weight systems,fleet-wide. An illustration of this process design, configured withinthis second flow-chart of the methodology for obtaining and implementingthe increased MTOW limitation for Regulated aircraft, herein is shownwithin FIG. 13,

Referring now to FIG. 14 there is shown view of a process design flowchart, for required pre-take-off and or post-landing actions, to befollowed by aircraft Flight Crew and Maintenance Control personnel, uponobservance of any weight threshold exceedance indications from periodicweight and CG measurements. This additional system support mechanism iscreated to document the processes, procedures and limitations for theuse of the apparatus and methods of this invention; so that RegulatoryAuthorities are assured an Equivalent Level of Safety is maintained. Inthe preferred embodiment of this invention the aircraft weight measuringsystem will display any aircraft weight “Threshold” exceedance within 4defined ranges.

-   -   1. The first range of measurements will be those of exceeding        any revised higher MTOW limitation. If the measured aircraft        weight is determined to be higher than the revised higher MTOW        (take-off) limitations, steps will be taken to remove weight        from the aircraft until the measured weight of the aircraft no        longer exceeds the revised higher MTOW limitation. Current        weight assumptions can allow an aircraft to exceed the revised        higher MTOW limitations and such exceedance will remain unknown.        Restrictions precluding aircraft operation beyond the revised        higher MTOW limitation offer a “Superior Level of Safety.” If        the aircraft weight measuring system is discovered inoperative,        the aircraft MTOW limitation shall revert back to its original        lower MTOW limitation.    -   2. The second range of measurements will be those of exceeding        any revised higher MLW (landing) limitation. If the measured        aircraft weight is determined to be higher than the revised        higher MTOW limitations, it shall be assumed that revised higher        MLW limitations would be exceeded by an equivalent value. Steps        will be taken to remove weight from the aircraft until the        measured weight of the aircraft no longer exceeds the revised        higher MTOW limitation, thus the planned MLW limitation will        remain within the revised higher MLW limitation.    -   3. The third range of measurements will be those of exceeding        any revised higher MZFW (zero-fuel) limitation. If the measured        aircraft weight is determined to be higher than the revised        higher MTOW limitations, it shall be assumed that revised higher        MZFW limitations would be exceeded by an equivalent value. Steps        will be taken to remove weight from the aircraft until the        measured weight of the aircraft no longer exceeds the revised        higher MZFW limitation, thus the planned MZFW limitation will        remain within the revised higher MZFW limitation.    -   4. The fourth range of measurements will be those of exceeding        any revised higher MRampW (ramp/taxi) limitation. The Ramp        weight is the heaviest assumed weight that the aircraft can be        allowed to taxi around the airport. Prior to take-off the        aircraft is much heavier, while carrying the additional weight        of the fuel anticipated to be used on the flight. If the        measured aircraft weight is determined to be higher than the        revised higher MTOW limitations, it shall be assumed that        revised higher MRampW limitations would be exceeded by an        equivalent value. Steps will be taken to remove weight from the        aircraft until the measured weight of the aircraft no longer        exceeds the revised higher MRampW limitation, thus the planned        MRampW limitation will remain within the revised higher MRampW        limitation.        Within a prescribed number of flight legs, the aircraft will be        return to a maintenance facility for an inspection of the        aircraft for signs that flight operating at the increased weight        limitations might create additional fatigue damage to the        aircraft. If no damage is found, the aircraft will be returned        to service. If damage is discovered, the damage will be        repaired, and noted into the aircraft's maintenance log.        Additionally the aircraft may have modifications applied to        specific areas of the airframe structure to reinforce and        correct for potential future fatigue damage, as noticed from the        ongoing aircraft inspections. An illustration of this process        design, configured within this third flow-chart of the        methodology for periodic inspection to insure continued        airworthiness of the aircraft will be maintained with the        increased MTOW limitation for Regulated aircraft, herein is        shown within FIG. 14.

It is understood that aircraft forward and aft CG limitations aredefined and set by the Regulatory Authorities, with such forward and aftlimitations based on the assumptions of the various weight componentsbeing placed at defined and known locations within the aircraft. Upondetermination of the amount of allowed weight increase as a percentageof total aircraft weight (as an example: a 4% weight increase to theMTOW), the equivalent percentage increase (the same 4%) shall be appliedto the boundaries of the forward and aft CG limitations.

Described within this invention are methods and strategies developed; inwhich the whole are now greater than the sum of its parts. Each of thesub-practices of this invention are elements which build upon eachother, and strengthen the foundation of justification for therealization that the aircraft design criteria regulations dating back 70years, have worked well for decades; but the development of newtechnologies, procedures and the careful implementation and monitoringof such practices offer justification through a finding of an EquivalentLevel of Safety, for aviation Regulatory Authorities to allow anincrease in the original weight limitations based upon assumed weightvalues to a second higher weight limitation based upon measure aircraftweight, allow the associated increase to a second set of higher aircraftMRampW, MTOW, MLW and MZFW limitations.

Where previous systems using assumed weight values have been used as atool to aid pilots with load planning procedures, to help avoid aircraftdepartures beyond the aircraft safe operational limits, this newinvention uses the apparatus and methods to increase the economic valueof the aircraft, by bringing to better light that current Regulationsare fall short in the accurate determination, of aircraft weight andcorresponding aircraft CG; and furthermore by measuring monitoringaircraft weights; allows aircraft to operate at an increased MRampW,MTOW, MLW and MZFW limitations . . . to be at an Equivalent Level ofSafety.

Although an exemplary embodiment of the invention has been disclosed anddiscussed, it will be understood that other applications of theinvention are possible and that the embodiment disclosed may be subjectto various changes, modifications, and substitutions without necessarilydeparting from the spirit and scope of the invention.

The invention claimed is:
 1. A method of obtaining a change to approved weight limits of a regulated aircraft type, wherein a plurality of aircraft of the aircraft type are each capable of carrying a payload and non-payload items, the payload computed using assumed and averaged weight values, the non-payload items based upon indicated weights of the non-payload items, the aircraft type having a first maximum weight limit, the method comprising the steps of: a. For one of the aircraft of the aircraft type, using a computer and modeling programs, simulating plural fully loaded aircraft flights operating near the first maximum weight limit, obtaining statistical and probability data of weight ranges, the statistical and probability data of weight ranges being associated with the assumed and averaged weight values of the payload and the indicated weights of the non-payload items, carried by the aircraft; b. Repeating step a) for additional simulated flights, determining an increasing range of assumed payload and non-payload weights; c. For a number of actual flights operating near the first maximum weight limit, obtaining computed data for the assumed weight values of the payload and non-payload items; d. For the same respective actual flights, comparing the range of statistical and probability data of payload and non-payload weight values, to the computed data for the assumed weight values of the payload and the indicated weights of the non-payload items, and determining a weight difference; e. For subsequent actual flights of the plurality of aircraft, using an automated system to measure the respective aircraft total weight, and using the determined weight difference, obtaining a second maximum weight limit for the aircraft type; f. For further subsequent actual flights, using an automated system to measure the respective total aircraft weight, while operating the aircraft of the aircraft type at weights within the second maximum weight limit.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining statistical and probability data of weight ranges further comprises the step of using a computer and random number generator program to provide the statistical and probability data of payload weight ranges, the random number generator program using a predetermined mean and a predetermined standard deviation associated with current assumed payload weight values.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining statistical and probability data of weight ranges further comprises the step of periodically measuring actual weights of the payload.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining computed data for the assumed weight values of the payload items further comprises the step of using Regulatory Authority designated weights provided in a Load Build Up Method.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the payload comprises passengers, having various weights.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the payload comprises carry-on items, having various weights.
 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the payload comprises checked-baggage, having various weights.
 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the indicated non-payload weights comprise an indicated aircraft fuel weight.
 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the indicated non-payload weights consist of a determined operating empty weight of one aircraft of the aircraft type.
 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the indicated non-payload weights consist of an identified weight range, sampled from a small segment of individually measured aircraft operating empty weights, averaged to a determined single aircraft operating empty weight, using the determined single aircraft operating empty weight for all aircraft of the aircraft type, in a sizeable fleet average operating empty weight program.
 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the second maximum weight limit comprises an increase to the first maximum weight limit.
 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the second maximum weight limit comprises a decrease from the first maximum weight limit.
 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the second maximum weight limit comprises a corresponding maximum takeoff weight limit.
 14. The method of claim 1, wherein the second maximum weight limit comprises a corresponding maximum landing weight limit.
 15. The method of claim 1, wherein the second maximum weight limit comprises a corresponding maximum zero-fuel weight limit.
 16. The method of claim 1, wherein the second maximum weight limit comprises a corresponding maximum ramp weight limit.
 17. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of determining whether the weight of the respective aircraft of the aircraft type is above the first maximum weight limit and near the second maximum weight limit, using a system to measure the total weight of the respective aircraft of the aircraft type. 